Ultimate Purpose of Space Shuttle Program?
- Thread starter heartoflesh
- Start date
- Status
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
I just hope then when e go to anew planet mars or anywhere we are wise in our use of its natural resources. and dont drill ourselves to death.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NASA use the shuttle for the deployment of spy satelllites as well as scientific research? Aren't there national security purposes behind the shuttle program as well as the goal of exploration, etc.?"
Unmanned rockets do the same thing all the time.
Unmanned rockets do the same thing all the time.
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
THIS TODAY...
Arthur I. Cyr: Mars could bring us closer
Arthur I. Cyr, Scripps Howard News Service
August 19, 2005 CYR0819
On Sunday, a Russian rocket based in Kazakhstan successfully launched an American space satellite. The powerful Soyuz-FG rocket reflects Communist initiative in the old Soviet Union. The two-ton Galaxy 14 satellite is a capitalist tool built by Orbital Satellites Corp. for PanAmSat Holding Corp.
Meanwhile, little land rover Opportunity just keeps chugging along over the surface of Mars, 14 months after landing. For a time the vehicle was stalled, wheels buried in a sand dune. But engineers on Earth, 100 million miles away, were able to maneuver Opportunity out of the mire.
Vice President Spiro Agnew used to make headlines by complaining loudly that good news gets underreported. These examples retrospectively bolster his bombast. Neither has received priority play in the media.
That may change, and relatively soon, especially in regard to Mars. President Bush is making distant space flight a much higher national priority again, to include a manned mission to Mars. Bush has not yet made a highly dramatic public announcement, along the lines of President John Kennedy's enunciation of a manned mission to the moon. NASA, however, has been directed to plan for Mars.
Space flight generates far less public excitement than in JFK's time, in part because we are collectively much more cautious. That attitude is well represented by the now-constant concern over safety of the shuttle flights.
Yet space flight is inherently unpredictable as well as risky. A shuttle flight stays relatively close to Earth, but two crews have been lost. The only casualties of the moon program were one brave crew incinerated in their capsule while still on Earth.
There are two very good reasons for pursuing the Mars mission. First, while the initial space program was fueled by the fixations and fears of the Cold War, this one could be defined by global cooperation.
Science has always held an olive branch. During the height of the Cold War, President Dwight Eisenhower fostered exchange between scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain. In the late 1950s, science cooperation during the International Geophysical Year was leveraged by Ike into demilitarization of Antarctica, the first significant arms agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union.
This time around, Sino-American relations could be furthered by cooperation to get to Mars. Wider multiculturalism also beckons.
Second, space exploration has driven technological advance, spawning consumer goods along with research tools. Extreme miniaturization of components for the moon mission in turn expanded applications for the computer microchip and other high-tech devices.
The personal computer is one of the most important by-products. The small inexpensive computer permits the pervasive information flows that we now take for granted. Whatever your partisan perspective, whenever you turn on a personal computer, you are saying hello to JFK.
Arthur I. Cyr, professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and the author of "After the Cold War," wrote this article for Scripps Howard News Service.
Arthur I. Cyr: Mars could bring us closer
Arthur I. Cyr, Scripps Howard News Service
August 19, 2005 CYR0819
On Sunday, a Russian rocket based in Kazakhstan successfully launched an American space satellite. The powerful Soyuz-FG rocket reflects Communist initiative in the old Soviet Union. The two-ton Galaxy 14 satellite is a capitalist tool built by Orbital Satellites Corp. for PanAmSat Holding Corp.
Meanwhile, little land rover Opportunity just keeps chugging along over the surface of Mars, 14 months after landing. For a time the vehicle was stalled, wheels buried in a sand dune. But engineers on Earth, 100 million miles away, were able to maneuver Opportunity out of the mire.
Vice President Spiro Agnew used to make headlines by complaining loudly that good news gets underreported. These examples retrospectively bolster his bombast. Neither has received priority play in the media.
That may change, and relatively soon, especially in regard to Mars. President Bush is making distant space flight a much higher national priority again, to include a manned mission to Mars. Bush has not yet made a highly dramatic public announcement, along the lines of President John Kennedy's enunciation of a manned mission to the moon. NASA, however, has been directed to plan for Mars.
Space flight generates far less public excitement than in JFK's time, in part because we are collectively much more cautious. That attitude is well represented by the now-constant concern over safety of the shuttle flights.
Yet space flight is inherently unpredictable as well as risky. A shuttle flight stays relatively close to Earth, but two crews have been lost. The only casualties of the moon program were one brave crew incinerated in their capsule while still on Earth.
There are two very good reasons for pursuing the Mars mission. First, while the initial space program was fueled by the fixations and fears of the Cold War, this one could be defined by global cooperation.
Science has always held an olive branch. During the height of the Cold War, President Dwight Eisenhower fostered exchange between scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain. In the late 1950s, science cooperation during the International Geophysical Year was leveraged by Ike into demilitarization of Antarctica, the first significant arms agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union.
This time around, Sino-American relations could be furthered by cooperation to get to Mars. Wider multiculturalism also beckons.
Second, space exploration has driven technological advance, spawning consumer goods along with research tools. Extreme miniaturization of components for the moon mission in turn expanded applications for the computer microchip and other high-tech devices.
The personal computer is one of the most important by-products. The small inexpensive computer permits the pervasive information flows that we now take for granted. Whatever your partisan perspective, whenever you turn on a personal computer, you are saying hello to JFK.
Arthur I. Cyr, professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and the author of "After the Cold War," wrote this article for Scripps Howard News Service.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Call me unscientific if you want to....
But I consider the space program to be a veiled, and sometimes unveiled attempt to disprove the existence of God.
Further, God didn't create life on Mars, so I really do not think He's going to allow men to settle there.
There is a reason the earth is the way it is, and I believe it is so connected to redemptive history that God will never allow the technology to advance so that man can transplant his sin from one planet to another.
And, as for the scientific discoveries, I cast my vote of doubt about this as well. Much of their discoveries is in the way of mathematics not observation. They think, therefore, it is.
If God can create a universe in such a way as to give rock the appearance of long ages, then He can most certainly turn our looks into the night sky into mirages of vastness. The presuppositions of the space program begin with no God, therefore, He will continue to confound those who supress the truth in unrighteousness.
I think Genesis must be taken into account when we speculate the space program and inhabiting other planets. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean that God will allow it, nor that man should attempt it.
In Christ,
KC
But I consider the space program to be a veiled, and sometimes unveiled attempt to disprove the existence of God.
Further, God didn't create life on Mars, so I really do not think He's going to allow men to settle there.
There is a reason the earth is the way it is, and I believe it is so connected to redemptive history that God will never allow the technology to advance so that man can transplant his sin from one planet to another.
And, as for the scientific discoveries, I cast my vote of doubt about this as well. Much of their discoveries is in the way of mathematics not observation. They think, therefore, it is.
If God can create a universe in such a way as to give rock the appearance of long ages, then He can most certainly turn our looks into the night sky into mirages of vastness. The presuppositions of the space program begin with no God, therefore, He will continue to confound those who supress the truth in unrighteousness.
I think Genesis must be taken into account when we speculate the space program and inhabiting other planets. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean that God will allow it, nor that man should attempt it.
In Christ,
KC
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
The funny thing is Kevin, your avatar suggests an inclination towards extra-terrestrial exploration. 
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by Rick Larson
The funny thing is Kevin, your avatar suggests an inclination towards extra-terrestrial exploration.
Star Trek
Genesis Project
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
At first my sentiments were similar to Kevins, however, after reading some earlier post I think I've changed my mind on this. As a postmillennialist who believes the millennium will possibly last up to 360,000 years (utilizing the 1 day=1 year principle Ezek 4:6) and believing people will live possibly up to 1000 years old (Gen 9:29; Isa 65:20) space settlement seems necessary.
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Futility...
I think the idea of colonising other planets etc is futile. Although they are not aware of it
The use and installation of satellites etc are great, communications like telephone and Internet and I suppose TV are are great.
Richard Branson hopes soon to offer space trips for around 200,000 pounds Stirling.
I do not even like airplanes, I went to Egypt last year and hated the flight, it was my first and last time.
As to loss of life, its very sad.
NASA = NEED ANOTHER SEVEN ASTRONAUTS
I think the idea of colonising other planets etc is futile. Although they are not aware of it
The use and installation of satellites etc are great, communications like telephone and Internet and I suppose TV are are great.
Richard Branson hopes soon to offer space trips for around 200,000 pounds Stirling.
I do not even like airplanes, I went to Egypt last year and hated the flight, it was my first and last time.
As to loss of life, its very sad.
NASA = NEED ANOTHER SEVEN ASTRONAUTS
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
This issue of IEEE Spectrum has its feature article about the space elevator concept. I guess with the continual developments in carbon nanotubes the idea is starting to get some legitimacy beyond the pages of Popular Science. For those who don't know the space elevator is a staple of science fiction. The idea is that one strings a 100,000 km ribbon from a counterweight in orbit to the surface of the earth. Then a motorized elevator car can climb the cable and deploy its cargo at the desired orbit. At an estimated 10 billion dollars it sounds like a bargin when compared to NASA's 15 billion dollar annual budget. The benefits are a hundred-fold decrease in the cost of shipping cargo to space and a far more ecological means of achieving orbit.
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
I don't see us EVER colonizing another planet. Even if it were possible (ie Mars), the cautions needed withing such a hostile atmosphere outweigh the benefits of attempting colonization.
Star Trek (much as I enjoy it) is unrealistic when confronted with the laws of physics and nature.
I don't see the space program as a means to disprove the existence of God, even though some may use it to do so. In fact, their findings have done nothing but prove the existence of a creator.
Star Trek (much as I enjoy it) is unrealistic when confronted with the laws of physics and nature.
I don't see the space program as a means to disprove the existence of God, even though some may use it to do so. In fact, their findings have done nothing but prove the existence of a creator.
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Amen, its obvious that all is designed, therefore there must be a Designer, cannot see a chimp writing a computer program or writing a book about his/her life, we are created in the image of God, the CREATOR.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
How about we seperate NASA from the theory of space colonization for a minute. Since NASA a USA funded program with failures seem's to blind us from the real issue Space Colonization.
If we can turn land here on earth into a place to live from nothing. Then why is that any different from doing it on mars?
If you look at how much population growth and consumption of natural resources and land. Their is an eventual need for terraforming. or even colonizing satalites.
Blade
If we can turn land here on earth into a place to live from nothing. Then why is that any different from doing it on mars?
If you look at how much population growth and consumption of natural resources and land. Their is an eventual need for terraforming. or even colonizing satalites.
Blade
I would favor the privatization of the space program though I can't think of any short term incentive for a private corporation."If you look at how much population growth and consumption of natural resources and land. Their is an eventual need for terraforming. or even colonizing satalites."
esp. if you grant my presuppositions: if the millennium will be 360,000 years and people will live up to 1000 years old the earth alone will not have the capacity to sustain the human population
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
"To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before For Christ's Crown and Covenant"
Blade
Blade
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
You two gents are comparing apples with oranges. You can take barren land here and use it as we have the resources around us to do so. On mars, I'm not even talking about agriculture...but the 1)lack of water and 2)the hostile atmosphere--not being able to go outside except in a spacesuit? Sorry, but I stick by my statement. The costs and risks of attempted survival makes the mere idea of colonization impractical.
I didn't understand what was meant by the "post-mil" quote. I don't see what post mil has anything to do with it...unless you believe that we will eventually out populate the earth? I can oust that misconception right now. Study history. Population has always fluxuated. Just as the earth warms and cools and warms again. When we have warmer climate and thus population growth, we also end up with growth of disease thus cutting back the population again. Between that, natural disasters, and war I don't believe we will ever "overpopulate" the earth.
I didn't understand what was meant by the "post-mil" quote. I don't see what post mil has anything to do with it...unless you believe that we will eventually out populate the earth? I can oust that misconception right now. Study history. Population has always fluxuated. Just as the earth warms and cools and warms again. When we have warmer climate and thus population growth, we also end up with growth of disease thus cutting back the population again. Between that, natural disasters, and war I don't believe we will ever "overpopulate" the earth.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
What about the risks of pilgrims coming to america? or the Jews following God into Egypt? or Abraham's journey?
blade
blade
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
I'm not going to go further on this one with you because A) I believe postmils vary on issues B) I still haven't had any complete explainations on order of postmil events C) I don't believe God created us to out populated that home that he's made for us.
For bladestunner...again you are comparing travel and settlement within a breathable environment to one that is not.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Ladyflynt,
Thats why we adapt by terraforming. Just because the eskimos had to have fur coats on all the time to live in the harsh cold of the great north does not mean we shouldnt live there.
If the air is not yet breathable then we will make it breathable. If we can get vegatation going and harvest trees. They will breath in unwanted harsh air and breath out oxygen.
All things are possible with the Lord. he will provide for His people.
Blade
Thats why we adapt by terraforming. Just because the eskimos had to have fur coats on all the time to live in the harsh cold of the great north does not mean we shouldnt live there.
If the air is not yet breathable then we will make it breathable. If we can get vegatation going and harvest trees. They will breath in unwanted harsh air and breath out oxygen.
All things are possible with the Lord. he will provide for His people.
Blade
- Status
Similar threads
